High CourtDivision Bench2011-07-22Interlocutory Application dismissed; prayers re...

Kachchh Jal Sankat Nivaran Samiti & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Case / Petition Number:Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5822 of 2006; IA Nos. 5-6 of 2011

Neutral Citation:[2011] 9 S.C.R. 491

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
Chandramauli Kr Prasad
Judgment Date: 2011-07-22
Court Decision / Holding: Interlocutory Application dismissed. The Court was not inclined to grant any of the prayers seeking interim directions or judicially manage the water allocation issue; the decision was left to executive authorities, emphasizing judicial restraint in matters of resource distribution.
Final Disposition: Interlocutory Application dismissed; prayers refused; no immediate judicial interference in water allocation.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kachchh Jal Sankat Nivaran Samiti & Ors.

Respondents

State of Gujarat
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R.S. Suri
• N.L. Ganpathi
• K.S. Prasad
• Chanchal Kumar Ganguli

Counsels for Respondents

• Shyam Diwan
• Hemantika Wahi
• Ashwini Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is an interlocutory application in a Special Leave Petition challenging the Government of Gujarat’s alleged meagre water allocation from the Sardar Sarovar Dam to the Kuchchh district and seeking directions to explore alternative conveyance systems for Narmada waters to Kachchh. The petitioners sought appointment of a committee of experts to assess various modes of conveyance, cost-benefit implications, and to submit a detailed report; they also sought to restrain construction of the Kachchh Branch Canal until that assessment is completed, and urged consideration of alternatives such as pipelines. They framed the issue as inadequate regional water allocation affecting a drought-prone district, claiming there is a need for judicial scrutiny to ensure fair distribution. The Gujarat High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there are no judicially manageable standards for adjudicating regional water allocation and that the State Government, following the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal, should decide. The Supreme Court, while hearing the interlocutory application, emphasized judicial restraint and held that allocation decisions involve complex socio-economic considerations not amenable to judicial review, citing the Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr. to support its stance. Consequently, none of the prayers were granted and the interlocutory application was dismissed, leaving the matter to executive decision-making with no immediate judicial intervention in the distribution of water resources.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Judicial restraint

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants urged the court to appoint a committee of experts to evaluate alternative systems of conveying Narmada waters to Kuchchh, including a possible pipeline, and to assess cost-benefit aspects and gather factual data to justify the decision. They prayed for interim relief to halt canal construction until the expert report is submitted and asked the court to direct consideration of various conveyance options with transparent data.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that allocation of water to a particular region is a policy matter managed by executive authorities and not amenable to judicial review. They relied on the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal and previous Supreme Court decrees establishing restrained judicial scrutiny of such decisions, indicating the need for balancing social and economic considerations rather than judicial intervention.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr.	(2008) 1 SCC 683	Positive	Cited to endorse the principle of judicial restraint in water allocation matters and to support dismissing the interlocutory relief as not suitable for judicial review.
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr.	2007 (12) SCR 1084	Positive	Referenced alongside the 2008 SCC citation, reinforcing the same principle of restraint in decisions affecting resource distribution.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Kachchh Jal Sankat Nivaran Samiti & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A 4 -~ B , # [2011] 9 S.C.R. 491 _)._ .;,, ## KACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. ## _v._ STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. I.A. NO. 5 OF 2011 IN (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).5822 of 2006) ## JULY 22, 2011 [MARKANDEY KATJU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR PRASAD, JJ.] c ## _WATER Disputes:_ _Narmada Waters._ - _Allocation of to Kachchh district_ - _Construction of Kachchh Branch canal_ - _Interim application in an SLP seeking to appoint_ a _Committee of experts to consider alternative systems of mode of conveyance of Narmada waters through Kachchh Branch canal to the region of Kachchh_ - _HELD: The prayer for a/location of adequate water in Kuchchh district is not one which can be_ a _matter of judicial review_ - _It is for the executive authorities to look into this matter_ - _There must be judicial restraint in such matters_ - _The Court is not inclined to grant any of the prayers made in the interlocutory application_ - _Application dismissed_ - _Interlocutory applications._ _Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club_ & _Anr. Vs. Chander Hass_ & _Anr._ 2007 (12) SCR 1084 = (2008) 1 SCC 683· relied on. D E F ## Case Law Reference: _-,!.._ 2007 (12) SCR 1084 relied on para 4 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 5-6 of 2011. IN SLP (Civil} No. 5822 of 2006. G H 491 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. 492 . . A From the Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2005 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 3358 of 1999. B R.S. Suri, N.L. Ganpathi, K.S. Prasad, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli for the Petitioners. . . Shyam Diwan, Hemantika Wahi, Ashwini Kumar for the Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered c ## **ORDER** Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s)/petitioner(s). This interlocutory application for directions is filed in the special leave petition. The special leave petition has been filed D against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 04.10.2005 dismissing the writ petition filed by way of Public Interest Litigation. The prayer in the Writ Petition related to the alleged grievance of meagre allocation of water from Sardar Sarovar Dam by the State Government of Gujarat to the district E of Kuchchh which is alleged to constitute 1/4th of the total area of the State of Gujarat and is alleged to be a drought prone district. By means of the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that there F are no judicially manageable standards for adjudication for allocation of water in favour of any region within the State. The Government is the best judge to decide how much water should be released from the Narmada Canal to Kuchchh and how much water is to be left for other regions. All these decisions G require delicate balancing and consideration of complex social and economical considerations which cannot be brought under the judicial scrutiny. In fact, the State Government has accepted the decision of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal which cannot be said to be arbitrary. • H Now, this interlocutory application for interim directions has 493 ~CHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. ~ _.A_ • ## _v._ STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. been filed with the following prayers :- "(a) to appoint a committee comprising of experts to go into the pros and cons of various alternative systems of mode of conveyance of Narmada waters through Kachchh Branch Canal to the region of Kachchh with reference to cost benefit ratio and other relevant aspects and be further please to direct the committee to submit a detailed report in this regard to the Hon'ble Court, and this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass further appropriate orders on receipt of such expert report. A B c (b) restrain the respondents from commencing the construction of proposed Kachchh Branch Canal until the aforesaid exercise is completed by this Hon'ble Court. _)_ -\ (c) direct the respondents to consider the relative cost advantage among various methods for transportation of D water through Kuchchh Branch Canal. (d) direct the respondents to consider the relative cost advantage in transporting water through Kuchchh Branch by pipeline as suggested by ewe. E (e) direct the respondents to present facts and figures on the basis of which the decision to transport the water through Kuchchh Branch Canal has been arrived at by the respondents." .. _1_ ) We are of the opinion that the prayer for allocation of adequate water in Kuchchh district is not one which can be a matter of judicial review. It is for the executive authorities to look into this matter. As held by this Court in _Divisional Manager, Arava/i Golf Club_ & _Anr. Vs. Chander Hass_ & _Anr._ (2008) 1 sec 683, there must be judicial restraint in such matters. F G For the reasons above stated, we are not inclined to grant any of the prayers made in the interlocutory application. The interlocutory application is dismissed accordingly. R.P. lnterloculory Application dismissed. H